It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Here is the link.

This is a quote from the article:



"Since being served with the Summons and Amended Complaint, Federal Defendant, with assistance of its attorneys, has analyzed Plaintiff’s request and conducted a search for responsive records. Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .” (Amend Compl. Inj. Relief #15 at 1.)"





The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant . . . as belonging to said aircraft . . .”


From Dwightvw at 911blogger:



We weren't trying to identify the aircraft, because we already knew. Since we weren't trying to identify the aircraft, any records of wreckage that might exist, even if they might have been used by someone else to identify the aircraft, are not records that would reveal the process by which the wreckage was positively identified by the FBI as belonging to the aircraft. How could such records reveal a process that the FBI did not undertake? Why would records be generated for a process that did not occur?


So the planes were never positively identified. The greatest airline tragedy in the history of the US and the FBI and NTSB did not positively identify the plane wreckage!! Hmmmm it could almost want to make you believe in conspiracies!

Edit Spelling!


[edit on 17-3-2008 by Leo Strauss]




posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Thanks for the post, I personally don't buy the idea that they didn't need to "identify" the plane. This is the gov and its agencies we are talking about, they do "redundant" things all the time, heck most of the forms people have to fill out are redundant!

Interesting article in the link as well.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I'm sure the insurance companies would have seen a need for the planes to be properly identified, if they had not been complicit themselves.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Thanks for the post, I personally don't buy the idea that they didn't need to "identify" the plane.

How do you know any of the alleged planes were from the alleged flights, unless you can categorically identify the wreckage?

How do you know that the alleged planes were actually planes, unless you can categorically identify the wreckage?

Not only is it poor investigative technique to not identify the wreckage, it is also complicit to cover-up the true identities of the alleged planes. People in charge should be held accountable for failing to identify the alleged wreckage of the alleged planes.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
If the FBI was not there to investigate the wreckage, then what were they there for? Traffic duty?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
They were busy running around and hitting all the gas stations, hotels and businesses to confiscate all video from security cameras in the vicinity of course!

[edit on 18-3-2008 by spectre76]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

The Pentagon BPS is the only government investigation of the crash of Flight 77 that admits to existing, but it was defined as and limited to an investigation of the performance of the building. There was no investigation into the crash by the National Transportation and Safety Board.


911commission.gov...

By law, the FBI becomes the lead investigative agency when airline crashes are the result of a criminal act, and the NTSB provides support when requested.
However, the families were advised by FBI officials that the FBI is investigating only the terrorists. Why, then, have we heard nothing from the NTSB?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Well, doesn't this just prove the oft-heard contention that the government is so incompetent that 9/11 must have been because everyone dropped the ball?
/sarcasm

Seriously, 9/11 is a grotesque singularity; look into just about any aspect of it and you quickly run smack into this kind of gross violation of longstanding procedure.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
OK so the FBI pretty much said "OK, these planes are the ones that were used. No question in our minds to suggest otherwise." and therefore there is no record of positively IDing the plane that crashed.

Some people would read this as some conspiracy to show the FBI tried to cover up the ID of the planes. Rational people would realize that at the time there was no reason to even suggest the planes weren't the ones they were said to be and simply pursued a different aspect of the investigation. There are no records if there was no test. There was no test if they felt there was no need for one. At the time, they felt there was no need to prove it was in fact those 4 planes. Why is this so hard to understand?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Rational people would realize that at the time there was no reason to even suggest the planes weren't the ones they were said to be and simply pursued a different aspect of the investigation. There are no records if there was no test. There was no test if they felt there was no need for one. At the time, they felt there was no need to prove it was in fact those 4 planes. Why is this so hard to understand?


How can anyone be 100% positive that the planes were truly the flights that they were supposed to be? I don't know much about how planes are tracked, can a transponder be removed and placed on another plane so as to render radar information invalid? THEY might be 100% sure but how do WE know? The fact that they were 100% sure actually leads me to believe even more that someone was "in the know". I mean really ... how hard would it have been to ID these planes???

You are investigating the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in this country's history and you don't even properly ID the main weapons used in the attack? Regardless of whether it was truly NEEDED or not ... seems fishy to me.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
There were NO PLANES used on 9/11 for the "terrorist attacks"! So if there were no planes that day, then it stands to reason that the FBI would have no reason to formally identify the wreckage. Have they identified the wreckage for the alleged "planes" used at the Pentagon or in Shanksville?? Of course not because the wreckage didn't exist and there were no planes used. Where is the video that conclusively shows a "plane" flying into the Pentagon?? It is well known that there are numerous cameras that are pointed at the "impact" area of the Pentagon and not one has been brought out to show a plane impact.
9/11....the biggest hoax in our history!! Well, that and this Democracy idea! Watch September Clues! Watch 9/11 Octopus! All available on google video.
www.youtube.com...


Cheers!

Purduegrad05



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz

How can anyone be 100% positive that the planes were truly the flights that they were supposed to be? I don't know much about how planes are tracked, can a transponder be removed and placed on another plane so as to render radar information invalid? THEY might be 100% sure but how do WE know? The fact that they were 100% sure actually leads me to believe even more that someone was "in the know". I mean really ... how hard would it have been to ID these planes???

You are investigating the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in this country's history and you don't even properly ID the main weapons used in the attack? Regardless of whether it was truly NEEDED or not ... seems fishy to me.


Don't forget that in 2 cases, the FDR's were found that correspond to the correct planes. These ARE plane parts.

Also, take a plane accident. Does the FBI or NTSB investigate plane parts to make sure they have the RIGHT PLANE? No. In every instance, they have radar tracks, and reports from the airlines that they have a plane down. Transponders were turned off, so faking it like that wouldn't be possible. Only now, after the fact, do no planers and trutherz use this as a sign that something fishy is going on, when in fact the planes are never id'd in the manner suggested. If anything, if there was an effort to id the plane in an extraordinary manner like that would lead me to believe that something is fishy. An effort to convnce the sheep as to what happened, so to speak.

They might track parts if they feel that this certain part could be the cause of the crash. Then they will use these part numbers, etc to check the maintenance logs and find out that part's "history". And then make recommendations. It's all part of the air safety program.

And as far as the NTSB goes, they investigate plane ACCIDENTS. They do this to find out what caused the accident and fix the problem. There is no reason for them to a safety investigation on 9/11 that I can see, because while they were indeed crashes, they weren't ACCIDENTS since the planes were deliberately flown into the buildings and the ground.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I'm not buying that there were no planes hitting the towers, but there definitely weren't any at the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, PA. I believe the NIST Report mentions the word "vaporized"... which more intelligent people can identify as a world-class bamboozlement second only to the notion of babies coming from the Stork. Good Christ, what has to happen in order for truth and justice to prevail here in the Klingon (or neocon) Empire?

Add: Or I'm pretty certain it's the NIST Report that states the "vaporized" nonsense. (That's the only government-sponsored report on 9/11, I'm pretty sure). It's one of the more believable facts I learned from (the film) ZEITGEIST.

[edit on 18-3-2008 by Lightworth]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
I'm not buying that there were no planes hitting the towers, but there definitely weren't any at the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, PA.


Why in the name of all that is good and pure would anyone fly planes into 2 buildings, but fake the other 2? This is not a very well thought out position, IMHO. If anything, flying a plane into the ground or into a building that is 1500' wide or so would be the EASIEST thing to do, of all that happened. WHY you would, or HOW you could come to this conclusion is beyond me.

The coverups in the NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report are very simple. They are NOT covering up some LIHOP or MIHOP bs. They are covering up the shortcomings of the buildings and the foreign policy that we had in the Middle East. Nothing more.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
aren't planes monitored on a radar? and be able to see what plane goes where?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Whodunnit, I leave it to those who are better-versed in the no-wreckage (outside NYC) research than I to provide a better response. I can say that the ONLY photos or video of Shanksville don't show anything resembling airplane wreckage. There's a big burn spot and some smoke, and that's IT. And there's never been any photo or video evidence of any part of a 757 (I think, or other large Boeing jet) at the Pentagon, as far as I know...

I have a buttload of work that's piled up for the rest of the afternoon, but will check back this evening at home. Ciao for now.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whodunnit

Originally posted by Lightworth
I'm not buying that there were no planes hitting the towers, but there definitely weren't any at the Pentagon and (near) Shanksville, PA.


Why in the name of all that is good and pure would anyone fly planes into 2 buildings, but fake the other 2? This is not a very well thought out position, IMHO. If anything, flying a plane into the ground or into a building that is 1500' wide or so would be the EASIEST thing to do, of all that happened. WHY you would, or HOW you could come to this conclusion is beyond me.

The coverups in the NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report are very simple. They are NOT covering up some LIHOP or MIHOP bs. They are covering up the shortcomings of the buildings and the foreign policy that we had in the Middle East. Nothing more.


The reason they diddint use 2 more planes is simple.

767 + 757 + fuel = more than 200 Million dollars

cruise missile painted up like an AA $600 000



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Let me get this straight:

Debunkers claim that there is a plethora of evidence at the pentagon that what we are told was the truth.

No video and/or photos.

No plane parts positively identified.

Only anectdotal evidence as I can see it.

And the "truthers" are the ones who are supossed to have the burden of proof?

How people can actually think that way is beyond me. Unless they are paid to think that way.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr.Greenthumb
aren't planes monitored on a radar? and be able to see what plane goes where?


But, we are told that they couldn't track the planes. Or so that's the excuse why the planes were not intercepted.

In my view, you can't have it both ways.

Either they couldn't track them.....which they would then not know exactly which plane hit.

Or.

They could track them....which then they are lying when they say they couldn't.

Which is it? I'm sick and tired of the runaround.

Debunkers and the government need to get their stories straight (and yes jthomas, there IS a story being peddled).

[edit on 3/18/2008 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightworth
Whodunnit, I leave it to those who are better-versed in the no-wreckage (outside NYC) research than I to provide a better response. I can say that the ONLY photos or video of Shanksville don't show anything resembling airplane wreckage. There's a big burn spot and some smoke, and that's IT. And there's never been any photo or video evidence of any part of a 757 (I think, or other large Boeing jet) at the Pentagon, as far as I know...

I have a buttload of work that's piled up for the rest of the afternoon, but will check back this evening at home. Ciao for now.


Well, by that reasoning, then I would expect you to be a little more consistent in what you think. There were only a few pieces that were identifiable as planes at the WTC too. A couple engine cores, landing gear, and 1 exterior skin that was found on top of....... WTC5 I believe. There are photos of this.

But guess what? There were similar pieces found in Pa and at the Pentagon. Engine cores found at both sites. Landing gear pieces found at the Penatgon. A sizeable piece of the exterior skin found in Pa. There are photos of this also, unless one chooses to believe that it's all fabricated. In which case we don't have much to discuss.

Your right, the Pentagon video is crappy. So realistically it can't be used as reliable evidence for EITHER side of the argument.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join